New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

HTF Blu-ray Review: THE GHOST WRITER - Page 2

post #31 of 54
8/13/10 at 5:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Reuben View Post

Jason, in answer to your spoiler-protected question:

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

I was careful to write around this in my plot summary, because the theft of the manuscript is one of those open-ended items that I think you're supposed to wonder about throughout the film. After several viewings, I see several possibilities. One is that Kroll, as Lang's attorney, was testing the waters to see whether McAra's death was truly accidental or indicated that someone was "concerned" about Lang's manuscript. Kroll knew that, if the GW left that meeting with a manuscript under his arm, anyone shadowing him would assume the manuscript was Lang's. If they tried to snatch it, Kroll would know that there was heat on Lang and act accordingly (whatever that might mean).

 

Of course, this assumes relatively innocent motives on Kroll's part. We don't really know what was in that manuscript. Suppose Lang had confided in his attorney and shared with him the message that Lang had encoded in the real manuscript. In that case, the manuscript handed to the GW might have been a decoy that Kroll knew would be snatched and that was designed to mislead the CIA into thinking the Lang manuscript was harmless.

 

Yet another possibility: The "muggers" are working for Richard Rycart, whose loyalties are never very clear. Kroll suspects that Rycart is out there gathering information on Lang, and the manuscript is a test of that theory.

 

Isn't it wonderful how little you can be sure of? 

 

 

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

Okay, I was kind of thinking along the lines of your last paragraph. I think the muggers were working for Rycart. I just don't see how Kroll could assume that a decoy manuscript would be stolen. The way Rycart acted when he got his hands on the actual memoirs at the diner sort of lends credence to the theory.

 

 

Reply

Gear mentioned in this thread:

The Ghost Writer (Single-Disc Blu-ray/DVD Combo)
post #32 of 54
8/14/10 at 1:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywoodaholic View Post

This was definitely the thinking person's picture for the past half year, and holds up better under repeated viewings than Inception.

 

 

I must be an unthinking person, because I rented this and was bored out of my mind. I like Pierce Brosnan, but am I glad I didn't purchase "Ghost Writer."

 

Hitchcock it ain't.

Reply
post #33 of 54
8/15/10 at 1:22am

This movie needs a discussion thread.

 

Thoughts;

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
 

Edit; Did the forum eat my discussion?

Reply
post #34 of 54
8/15/10 at 6:39am
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zack Gibbs View Post

This movie needs a discussion thread.

 


There is one. A search should bring it up. (EDIT: I forgot -- it's listed in the sidebar as a related thread.) It has zero entries.

 

This thread is here, because I asked Adam G. to request a review copy. I thought this film was worth more attention, and limited-release films don't get that until they hit Blu-ray.


Edited by Michael Reuben - 8/15/10 at 1:52pm
Reply
post #35 of 54
8/15/10 at 7:36am

 

Michael,

Just a couple of minor quibbles about your review:

1. I didn't get the impression that McAra was a former aide to Lang, just the ghost writer assigned to do his memoirs.

2. McAra wasn't just helping Lang to write his memoirs, he was the one doing the writing.

3. George W. Bush was not an avid runner. He was an avid biker.

 

Really enjoyed the movie and enjoyed the ambiguity of the ending.

Thanks,

Reply
post #36 of 54
8/15/10 at 7:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zack Gibbs View Post

This movie needs a discussion thread.

 


May as well christen this review as the official discussion thread. The review itself is a great reference and starting point.

Reply
post #37 of 54
8/15/10 at 10:43am

 Michael Reuben posted:

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

 Suppose Lang had confided in his attorney and shared with him the message that Lang had encoded in the real manuscript. In that case, the manuscript handed to the GW might have been a decoy that Kroll knew would be snatched and that was designed to mislead the CIA into thinking the Lang manuscript was harmless.

 

however, shouldn't that be

 

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

 McAra's coded message? Lang appeared to be a clueless dupe who wasn't even aware that his own wife was a recruited CIA agent. If Lang had encoded the message I think he would have spoken in the first person rather than the third.

 

 

 

Polanski may be a low-life whose celebrity and money constantly protects him from his just desserts, but his acumen as a filmmaker can't be denied. This film is further proof of that. It is an old school thriller that doesn't need to rely on dozens of  graphic murders to generate "tension". It is well constructed and never boring even though it contains very little actual action. I thought it did have a couple of weaknesses:  the biggest being the

 

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
too convenient left over instructions in the GPS of the SUV. I found it hard to believe that two professional CIA hitters would not ensure that the memory of that device was wiped clean.

I also thought the acting of the two women felt forced when they were crying on the GW's shoulder. Neither of them came off as very genuine. To me, there didn't seem to be much chemistry between either of the women and the GW: certainly not enough for him to be a convenient shoulder to cry on.

 

One other thing I found interesting was 

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
the car "chase". It is interesting how Polanski constructed that scene so that, as a viewer, a person is left with the impression that McGregor was recreating the exact actions of his predecessor after leaving Emmet's house, including turning off into the deadend side road in an attempt to throw of his pursuers. Polanski basically created a flashback without actually showing a flashback scene.

 At least that is the impression that I was left with. This was a very good film that I had never heard of before reading this review.

 

There were trailers for two other films that looked promising. I can't remember the name of the one, but "Triage" looked interesting. It's directed by the same fellow who did "No Man's Land".

Reply
post #38 of 54
8/15/10 at 12:06pm

Discussion;

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

First, given that politicians write the history books, I like that the title can refer to Ruth. How many put that together, show of hands? The subject is probably more ambiguous when it's titled just "The Ghost," like the book and European release was.

 

Regarding the GPS, Edwin. Who are the two professional CIA 'hitters?' Tom Wilkinson, understandably, has to keep his distance from Lang. He's not going to have access. And Ruth isn't exactly a field agent. She was recruited at a very young age (implausibly young really, Olivia Williams was 6 in 1974, so she's playing a much older character.) and immediately went into service as Lang's 'Ghost.' She's not a spy, they hired her to be what she was; a politician. I can let that go.

 

The numerous implausibilities regarding the ridiculously simple coded message in the manuscript are far more bothersome, but hey you gotta have a movie. And I can pretend the code was much more difficult, and only simple in the movie so the audience can 'experience' it.

 

I ponder Kim Cattrall's role in everything. At the end she is wholly responsible for everything that happens to GW. She tells him about Tom Wilkinson's relation to Ruth, clarifies the CIA's interest in the manuscript, clarifies "beginnings." And She's the one who invited him, the only reason he was attending. It seems too much to take at face value.

Reply
post #39 of 54
8/15/10 at 12:58pm
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Shanks View Post

 

Just a couple of minor quibbles about your review:

1. I didn't get the impression that McAra was a former aide to Lang, just the ghost writer assigned to do his memoirs.

 

The dialogue is explicit that McAra had been with Lang for a long time.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Shanks View Post

 

2. McAra wasn't just helping Lang to write his memoirs, he was the one doing the writing.

 

That's an interesting point. Nowhere in the film is it explicitly stated who wrote what. And if McAra was the author, why was the thing so hopelessly dull? More importantly:

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

If Lang had no responsibility for creating the manuscript and encoding a secret message in it, why was he killed? One would have to go with the theory that his assassin was just a lone gunman crazed with grief -- one who just happened to penetrate tight security to end up on the airport roof at just the right moment, after seeking out the GW at his hotel (when he was the only one staying) to establish a pattern for the police to ask about and make the GW the principal witness, etc. etc.

 

I don't buy that theory at all. I think Lang was onto his wife and was assassinated to clean up the operation. But I can't "prove" that any better than anyone else can prove the contrary. 

  

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Shanks View Post

 

3. George W. Bush was not an avid runner. He was an avid biker.

 

It's a quibble not worth debating, but I've seen too many pictures of Bush jogging and read too many accounts that refer to the activity. Also, the story of the collapse while jogging that lead to his sobriety is part of the official biography. If you prefer, think of it as a devotion to "exercise".
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edwin-S View Post

 Michael Reuben posted . . . however, shouldn't that be

  

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

 McAra's coded message? Lang appeared to be a clueless dupe who wasn't even aware that his own wife was a recruited CIA agent. If Lang had encoded the message I think he would have spoken in the first person rather than the third.

 

You have a point, but speaking in the first person would risk a lack of clarity, which is especially dangerous when one is dealing with covert plots and conspiracies. Explicit language is preferable. Also, see my comments in the spoiler above. There are no clear answers in this story, which is one of the things I love about it.


Edited by Michael Reuben - 8/25/10 at 7:01am
Reply
post #40 of 54
8/15/10 at 1:38pm

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

Was Lang onto it all? I don't think so, but there is material to suggest he could be. Ruth says he always used to take her advise, but recently had not.

 

But personally I don't think he had anything to do with the code. That doesn't make his death a coincidence from a lone gunman. He was killed after GW exposed his own theory. It may have been funny to Lang at the time, but he was given enough information that he most certainly would have put everything together very soon. So they took him out.

Reply
post #41 of 54
8/16/10 at 9:41am

Wow, I thought I understood this movie, until I read this thread . I thought it was a great movie, but I don't really know if it's a must-buy. The problem that many thrillers have is that once the element of surprise is gone, there's not much left to enjoy. Maybe I need to judge that for myself. Nevertheless, strong acting all around. I didn't even know Kim Cattrall and James Belushi were in this, and seeing Eli Wallach is always a great pleasure.

One thing that threw me off, though, was the obvious use of green screen. It's odd that after years of CG effects, one of the simpler things is so hard to get right. Or maybe it's just me.

Reply
post #42 of 54
8/16/10 at 11:38am
Cold have been intentional. This move ws Hitchcockian and most of his movies had that look.
Reply
post #43 of 54
8/25/10 at 3:27am

Brilliant including the score!

Reply
post #44 of 54
8/25/10 at 11:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyD View Post

Cold have been intentional. This move ws Hitchcockian and most of his movies had that look.


Yeah, maybe. Or just bad effects.

Reply
post #45 of 54
8/28/10 at 2:50am

Does the album cover of the score add to the openness of the ending?

Reply
post #46 of 54
8/28/10 at 11:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yumbo View Post


Does the album cover of the score add to the openness of the ending?




Openess? What openess?
Reply
post #47 of 54
8/28/10 at 1:38pm

I'm curious about that myself. The ending seemed pretty concrete to me.

Reply
post #48 of 54
8/30/10 at 5:57pm

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

Is someone dead if there is no body? 

 

The score album cover captures time in motion?

Undead?

 

Zombie sequel?

 

 

 

The score album cover captures time in motion?

Undead?

 

Zombie sequel?


Edited by Yumbo - 8/30/10 at 10:21pm
Reply
post #49 of 54
8/30/10 at 10:03pm

In the case of that ending......

 

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

 yes.

 Also, you probably should spoilerize that first line. I'm sure there are a lot of people that still haven't seen this film.

Reply
post #50 of 54
9/6/10 at 3:10am

Anyone else make the connection between the conspiracy plot of the movie and the the parallel with the production of the movie?

 

Trouble for the writer = trouble for the director?

Reply
post #51 of 54
9/6/10 at 9:55am
Wasn't that addressed in the introduction section of the review?
Reply
post #52 of 54
9/6/10 at 2:30pm

The review doesn't allude to that.

 

I just find it highly coincidental that when Polanski works on this movie there is a concerted effort to stymie him that has never been seen before.

 

Especially when Blair's actual memoir hits the street last week, and having seen the movie, art imitating life (and vice-versa) takes on a new dimension.

Reply
post #53 of 54
9/6/10 at 4:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yumbo View Post

Anyone else make the connection between the conspiracy plot of the movie and the the parallel with the production of the movie?

 

Trouble for the writer = trouble for the director?


What I mostly noticed, that might have a parallel to his life, is the turmoil caused by a criminal accusation and the type of responses that follow.  
 

Reply
post #54 of 54
12/15/10 at 2:24pm

Finally watched this yesterday.  It went off the deep end, but I enjoyed it anyway. :)  The re-dubbed f-bombs (there were two that I noticed) made me laugh but didn't detract from the film.  Kim Cattrall's phony accent was hilarious; other comments I'll spoilerize.

 

I want to mention that the three featurettes were really fantastic -- some of the best 10-minute extras I've ever seen (aside from the incessant movie clips between comments).  I especially liked Robert Harris' description of how the story came together.

 

Just a quick note on Polanski's legal "adventures" -- if you can find the recent Larry King (!) interview with his victim and her lawyer, check it out.  They go into great detail about what really happened and all the legal maneuverings that have followed.  (Yes, Larry King!)

 

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

The "Omnipotent, sinister CIA" cliche bores me in general.  I just treated the film as fantasy and let it slide.  That Cattrall invited MacGregor to the party at the end made me wonder if she wasn't Ruth's handler herself.  The guy who shot Brosnan is an interesting question -- I'm inclined to believe that he was a lone wacko, but that theory leaves open the question of how he managed to get into an airport with a rifle, let alone an airport where a major political figure is about to appear.  Most likely a formerly lone wacko who had help.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Official HTF Blu-ray Reviews

Gear mentioned in this thread:

The Ghost Writer (Single-Disc Blu-ray/DVD Combo)